stexpandedfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Role play sources
Any thoughts about the recent and articles having RPG books as sources? I'm thinking this is the first time we had a D&D-type Trek role play article posted. They are role play, but then again, they're not able to be confirmed as per our policy. I'm guessing the ships and their histories are made-up, but based on book specs (Let me know if I interpreted that wrong). We do allow online-Sim players to post in-depth character/ship bios, and we do have a 'doubtful but not harmful' section at Star_Trek_Expanded_Universe:Citation (may or may not be applicable), but I just wanted to get a feel if anyone had any thoughts. I'd like to be a support for the RP community, but tabletop is new to me, and I don't want to contradict policy. --Hawku (talk) 19:17, July 7, 2015 (UTC) :Discovery seems to be from the sourcebook given there is an article on the ship on MB dating back to 2006. Twilight I'm unsure about due to the lack of a MB reference. :My view on the 'doubtful' stuff in the Citation policy is that it was created to exclude certain material such as Remington, Pendragon from needing to be sourced at the time. They were two of the largest fanon sources on STEU so you can understand why they got special treatment given how much smaller the wiki was back then. Not to mention their creators were prominent contributors here outside their fanon material. Outside that I've always more or less ignored that part and gone with a pure black or white approach to sourcing. --JayLR 07:12, July 9, 2015 (UTC) ::I agree with JayLR. I think that if citations to an online source can be provided, the articles in question are fine; but I don't think that we should allow stuff that's from somebody's paper and pencil RPG session--and I say that as somebody who DMs regularly IRL. Basically, if it's public and people can see it on the internet, provide a link to it; if it doesn't exist on the Internet, don't put an article about it on here. Just my 2 cents. Worffan101 (talk) 20:08, July 9, 2015 (UTC) :::Sounds good, thanks! Any thoughts on what'd be sufficient for a tabletop (hope that's the right term) as a source? Not sure if we'd encourage people to post some kind of story record on an external website, or if character/ship bios on an external site would be enough. (Or, maybe they generally won't work on STEU.) JayLR, I wonder if the section with Remington/''Pendragon'' should be removed. --Hawku (talk) 16:08, July 10, 2015 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure if it would work. I guess it would have to be a sort of case by case thing. Take the articles mentioned above, the creator said he has a manuscript so we encourage him to put it up somewhere and then add info here on that rather than info purely from his PPRPG. ::::Both REM and PDN have sources these days so that section can be removed. The second half of the 'Unsourced material' that deals with sections within articles needs to be changed as well to reflect that these sections should be tagged, which I should have done when I created the tags in the first place. I could do that if you want. --JayLR 06:34, July 11, 2015 (UTC) :::::Just took a crack at it. How does it look? Hopefully I got it, but edit as you see fit. --Hawku (talk) 15:43, July 11, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Made a small change in removing the part about the nosource tag so it just says to tag with citation to make it less confusing (I think). Also removed a reference at the bottom to Project:Source, which ended ages ago. --JayLR 15:43, July 12, 2015 (UTC) :::::Ah, my fault for jumping the gun. I think we do have a few series running under the 'doubtful but not harmful' mindset, Star Trek: The Intrepid Adventures, plus in-progress fan film sources with nothing released yet (except in-progress sites), Star Trek: Guardian, Star Trek: Deutschland, etc. Creators for these have communicated they have stuff coming for them. I wonder if I should re-add that Original Content section for these. And/or going forward adopt a more strict black and white policy for sourcing (like you mentioned). Then again, Star Trek: Renegades hasn't released their film yet and I was going to start an article for them. --Hawku (talk) 03:23, July 18, 2015 (UTC) Fan films are a bit of a difficult case given the work that goes into actually making them. It's not a great system, but in the past I've applied a bit of personal judgement on whether I believe the production to be 'real' or not. For example, take Renegades, they have a live action trailer (if I'm thinking of the right thing...it has Tuvok in it right?). So you can be pretty sure that even if no film gets made that it was a real production at some stage and it isn't just product of STEU. On the other hand Deutschland is less certain because it spawned on STEU as a bunch of ideas and it doesn't seem to have actually gone anywhere, so it seems more like just an idea rather than a serious production. In the past with cases like this after an extended period of time with nothing happening I have put the film article for deletion and go whichever way that decides. --JayLR 13:28, August 1, 2015 (UTC) :I think you're right. There is a distinction between both. There is proof for the former (yep, that's the Tuvok one), and not much for the latter, despite the FB page. That series will have to be addressed. Also, maybe I should put a note on the citation page, along the lines of "if it doesn't appear there is an actual production in-progress, through updates/photos/etc., it may be cause to be tagged for deletion (after 'this amount of time'... 3 months maybe)". --Hawku (talk) 18:26, August 2, 2015 (UTC) ::That sounds good. --JayLR 05:58, August 6, 2015 (UTC)